IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No NO ==========================================================

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus VASHRAMBHAI HARKHJIBHAI SANJA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS NIYATI CHAUHAN FOR MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RAHUL DAVE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)

No. 2 MR DHRUV D DESAI(9909) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR UMANG R VYAS(5595) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 19/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and award dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Morbi in LAR Case No.807 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay additional compensation at the rate of Rs.36 per Are for the jirayat land. The details of the land acquired from Village Khirai, Taluka Maliya, District Morbi, are stated hereinbelow:

Sr.No. LAR No. Survey No. Area:H-Are-Squ.Mt

1 807/2004 116/1 paiki 01-49-62

2 Heard the learned advocate Ms.Niyati Chauhan for the appellant and the learned advocate Dhruv Desai for the defendant.

3 It is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Chauhan for the appellant that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon Exhibit 27, which pertains to a sale instance of the year 2001, wherein the land was sold at the rate of ₹3,00,000/- for 2 Acres and 0 Gunthas, translating to ₹37.06 per square metre. Learned advocate Ms. Chauhan submits that this Court, in acquisition proceedings concerning the adjoining village, namely Juna Ghatila, Taluka Maliya, where the Section 4 Notification was issued in the year 1993, has awarded compensation at the rate of ₹40 per square metre for non-irrigated land and ₹60 per square metre for irrigated land.

3.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Chauhan that, after applying appropriate deductions keeping in view the difference in the notification years, the market value of the land in the present case would be substantially lower than the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court. In this background, learned advocate Ms. Chauhan prays that the present First Appeal be allowed and that the market value be reassessed in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Court in respect of the adjoining village.

4 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that the judgment relied upon by the appellant pertains to the acquisition of the year 1993, whereas in the present case the Section 4 Notification is of a much later period, i.e. the year 2002. Learned advocate further submits that no dispute was raised by the witness during deposition regarding the bona fide nature of the sale transaction reflected in the sale deed produced at Exhibit 27. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Desai that the sale deed of the year 2001 is proximate in point of time to the issuance of the Section 4 Notification, and therefore the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the said document for determining the market value. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submits that the Reference Court has committed no error in awarding additional compensation at the rate of ₹36 per Are. In the aforesaid background, learned advocate prays that the appeal may be dismissed.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Desai has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR (2025) SC 3500 and submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Court in relying the sale instances and assessing the market value on the basis of the same.

5 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon examin